As military officials formulate plans to open combat positions to women, the Commander of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command is vowing any changes in job requirements will be handled fairly.

"Soldiers - both men and women - want fair and meaningful standards" Gen. Robert W. Cone said. "I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army."

Last week, Secretary of State Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced the end of the 1994 policy that prohibited women from serving in combat positions below a brigade level. At that time, Panetta said each branch of the military will examine requirements for positions and provide information by May 16 if they feel some jobs should remain off limits to women. Full implementation is due by 2016.

The vast majority of the newly opened positions will be in the Army. As of September, 418 of the Army's 438 military occupational specialties, known as MOSs, were open to women. The remaining positions are now being examined to determine if they will be opened.

Cone said the Army will be "looking at knowledge, skills and attributes of soldiers and get the best match in specialties (now restricted) like infantry, armor, field artillery and engineers."

One of the main areas of examination will be physical requirements.

"Soldiers don't want to see (that) degraded," Cone said.

Cone said each requirements for each position will be examined, such as information on how much infantry soldiers are required to lift and carry and for how long. Once that information is complete, Cone said scientists will develop physical tests to validate those requirements.

He added that TRADOC is also examining armies in countries such as Iraq and Canada, where women already serve in combat roles.

In comments made shortly after the change was announced, Dempsey echoed Cone's statements about fairness and training.

"Some fear that this decision will lower standards in our military. That is simply not the case. The services will carefully examine current standards to ensure we have them right, taking into consideration lessons learned from a decade of war and changes in equipment, tactics and technology. We will study each closed occupational field or unit to determine where women are able to serve," he said.

"Let me be clear: The standards will be gender-neutral -- the same for men and women. The burden of proof used to be 'why should a woman serve in a particular specialty?'" Dempsey added. "Now, it's 'why shouldn't a woman serve in a particular specialty?'"

WRT “...such as Iraq and Canada, where women already serve in combat roles.” What was the last time Canadian’s were in combat and how many of their women were involved in sustained, direct ground combat? As far as the Iraqi army, well, we know how their last two major theater wars turned out. Maybe this is designed to give them a “fair” shot.

"Some fear that this decision will lower standards in our military. That is simply not the case. The services will carefully examine current standards to ensure we have them right, taking into consideration lessons learned from a decade of war and changes in equipment, tactics and technology.

Right. In other words they will determine that the current standards are no longer necessary and they will lower them so that women will be able to qualify. Hence, making them the same for men and women.

8
posted on 01/29/2013 7:50:10 PM PST
by VeniVidiVici
(Bathhouse Barry wants YOU to bend over for another four years)

"I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army."

Translation: Standards will be lowered across the board so that everyone feels better about themselves. Whether or not America will ever again win a war is irrelevant, as long as nobody's feelings are hurt.

Is this guy actually a career soldier? Did he draw the short straw in the Marxist Club in college and have to infiltrate the military to further their goals?

Does that mean that the women entering the infantry will have to meet the same minimums on the PT test as the men?

The minimum passing score in the Army in each category (pushups, situps, and the 2-mile run) is 60 points.

For a 20-year-old male, that’s 42 pushups. For a female, it’s 19.

The more common minimum acceptable score for infantry units is 70 points, with a strong push for 80 points. Which are 49 and 57 pushups, respectively.

There certainly are some women who can meet these standards, though not many. Will the women entering the infantry be held to the same standards as the men? Or will they be held to the lower, gender-specific standards?

In the case of an electronics tech, the gender-specific standards make some sense. In terms of general health and conditioning, the male and female standards represent roughly equivalent levels.

But when you’re dragging a wounded buddy out of an alley after an ambush, he doesn’t get lighter just because you’re a woman. In the infantry, objective, rather than relative, measures of performance are appropriate.

"I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army."

Ugh. Where is fairness suppose to fit into an organization in which the main function is to kill or die in order to protect the nation. With men like this running our military it's not really our military anymore is it? I mean these guys are paid to protect our way of life not transform it into somekind of Communist ideal. And the destruction of the natural differences between men and women and all peoples really is at the core of Communism, which itself is just a means to a end.

There certainly are some women who can meet these standards, though not many. Will the women entering the infantry be held to the same standards as the men? Or will they be held to the lower, gender-specific standards?

Spelling out the realities. You ever go up 1 on 1 in sports against a female? They are always in slow-mo vs a man no what shape the female is in.

But when youre dragging a wounded buddy out of an alley after an ambush, he doesnt get lighter just because youre a woman. In the infantry, objective, rather than relative, measures of performance are appropriate.

Does that mean the women will have to walk point?

20
posted on 01/29/2013 8:01:35 PM PST
by Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)

"Let me be clear: The standards will be gender-neutral -- the same for men and women. The burden of proof used to be 'why should a woman serve in a particular specialty?'" Dempsey added. "Now, it's 'why shouldn't a woman serve in a particular specialty?'"

Gender neutral = lower standards for all members. Great! The feminization of our Military has begun. How long before we have a military equivalent to France's???

21
posted on 01/29/2013 8:08:41 PM PST
by SoldierDad
(Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)

I remember during rugby practice one time the women’s varsity politely asked the men’s freshman team to scrimmage so they could “up their game”. The scrimmage was called after 5 minutes due to the men, playing at 3/4 speed, runing over the women. Both sides realized it was a pointless exercise, not repeated.

the worst part of this horrendous decision is this....if a woman is allowed to be given a combat role, then she can, and will be ordered into one.....she, like every male in the military, will have to accept whatever position that she is ordered to fulfill.BAD IDEA.....of all the inane things coming out of the Obama administration, this is, by far, the worst.

Somebody mentioned in the past the Israelis tried combat roles for the gals years ago and dropped it. When the Arabs captured one they would torture her into screaming and the Israeli grunts went nuts and against orders tried to save them. Men, other than moslem males that is, are hard wired that way. The ambushes set up by the Arabs slaughtered them.

Right. In other words they will determine that the current standards are no longer necessary and they will lower them so that women will be able to qualify.

Hate to break it to you, mate, but you are decades too late for that particular worry. Even as far back as the seventies some muck-sucking politico(s) mandated a defined percentage of females in the military. To meet the ordered percentages, standards were lowered across the board by any means necessary, and near as can be determined that has not changed.

They are. Anyone in the blast radius will be killed or wounded regardless of gender. The grenade does not care what gender you are when you pull the pin and throw it. It will explode regardless of the distance thrown.

Gender-neutral standards? Obviously he’s fighting a war against reality because a) the vast majority of humans are either male xy or female xx, and b) it is precisely these chromosomal arrangements that decide the upper limits of strength of the fighting force.

How many BS surveys will be conducted/sent out to the troops to obtain feedback... feedback ostensibly used in order to formulate appropriate, workable policy?

It would be what those old FR threads about being Delphi-ed are all about. Institute whatever-the-h*ll policy they intend from the get-go, but keep a revolt down by making survey participants think that it was some sort of consensus within the ranks.

They’ll want honest feedback all right... so they’ll know what kind of opposition they face and can thus counter it effectively.

This one will be the ultimate “gender survey”... on steroids.

I wonder if this latest scheme is a follow-up to intergrating perverts. After all, the women are surely more welcoming (than normal males) of the catty, bitchy... er I mean chatty, crafty interior decorators in their midst.

This must be one of those generals who passed Obama’s “test” with flying colors.

50
posted on 01/29/2013 9:41:45 PM PST
by Ezekiel
(The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.